Parental authority over illegitimate or nonmarital children, A176 Family Code
1. Parental authority over illegitimate or nonmarital children
Article 176. Illegitimate children x x x shall be under the parental authority of their mother x x x (As amended by R.A. 9255)
An illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother. In the exercise of that authority, she is entitled to keep the child in her company. The Court will not deprive her of custody, absent any imperative cause showing her unfitness to exercise such authority and care. (Briones v. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004, Per Panganiban, J.)
Grande v. Antonio, Em Banc, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014, Per Velasco, Jr., J.:
• Parental authority over minor children is lodged by Art. 176 on the mother; hence, respondent’s prayer has no legal mooring. Since parental authority is given to the mother, then custody over the minor children also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be unfit.
Briones v. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004, Per Panganiban, J.:
• Michael is a natural (“illegitimate,” under the Family Code) child, as there is nothing in the records showing that his parents were suffering from a legal impediment to marry at the time of his birth. Both acknowledge that Michael is their son. As earlier explained and pursuant to Article 176, parental authority over him resides in his mother, Respondent Loreta, notwithstanding his father’s recognition of him.
• David v. Court of Appealsheld that the recognition of an illegitimate child by the father could be a ground for ordering the latter to give support to, but not custody of, the child. The law explicitly confers to the mother sole parental authority over an illegitimate child; it follows that only if she defaults can the father assume custody and authority over the minor. Of course, the putative father may adopt his own illegitimate child; in such a case, the child shall be considered a legitimate child of the adoptive parent.
• There is thus no question that Respondent Loreta, being the mother of and having sole parental authority over the minor, is entitled to have custody of him.She has the right to keep him in her company.She cannot be deprived of that right,and she may not even renounce or transfer it “except in the cases authorized by law.”
• Not to be ignored in Article 213 of the Family Code is the caveat that, generally, no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, except when the court finds cause to order otherwise.
• Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mother’s unfitness to exercise sole parental authority, shall justify her deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody to someone else.In the past, the following grounds have been considered ample justification to deprive a mother of custody and parental authority: neglect or abandonment,unemployment, immorality,habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable disease.
• We likewise affirm the visitorial right granted by the CA to petitioner. In Silva v. Court of Appeals,the Court sustained the visitorial right of an illegitimate father over his children in view of the constitutionally protected inherent and natural right of parents over their children.Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for each other is lost, their attachment to and feeling for their offspring remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer, absent any real, grave or imminent threat to the well-being of the child.
